New Delhi, April 4 -- The Supreme Court has warned the Gujarat government that failure to implement the state's remission policy in both letter and spirit could invite "strict penal orders", underlining that any delay beyond the prescribed period of incarceration would render a prisoner's detention "illegal". A bench of justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan came down heavily on the state for dragging its feet in considering the premature release of a life convict, despite the prisoner having already completed the minimum qualifying sentence of 14 years. The court made it clear that once a state frames a remission policy, it cannot treat it as a mere formality. While acknowledging that premature release is not a fundamental right, the bench emphasised that it assumes the character of a "vested right" once the state chooses to exercise its discretion through a policy framework. Driving home the constitutional stakes, the court held that liberty cannot be held hostage to bureaucratic delay. "In matters which relate to life and liberty of a person, the Constitutional Principles have to be invoked, for the reason that every day beyond the period which in law has been prescribed, and in the present case, a statutory law relating to the period of incarceration, the person would be considered to be in illegal custody and rightly so," noted the bench, making it clear that non-compliance with remission timelines directly implicates the fundamental right to personal liberty. The case arose from the plea of Mahesh Kumar Dhisalal Jangid convicted in a murder case, who had completed the requisite period for consideration under Gujarat's 1992 remission policy. Despite this, the state informed the court that his case was still "being processed" and would be placed before the competent committee, which meets only a few times a year. The bench found this explanation "absolutely unacceptable", noting that the policy itself mandates that the process for premature release must begin three months prior to the completion of 14 years of imprisonment, so that a final decision is ready by the time the eligibility threshold is reached. Jangid's petition was argued through senior counsel Mahalakshmi Pavani...